(a) the regular season champion men's team in even years and the regular season champion women's team in odd years

(b) either the regular season champion men's or women's team, depending upon which team had the highest cumulative home attendance

(c) either the regular season champion men's or women's team, depending upon which team finished with a greater margin of victory over the second place team

and finally, the greatest idea of all time:

(d) at the school with the best combined men's and women's regular season records

If the Ivy League were to adopt any of strategies (b), (c) or (d), the media attention would be overwhelming. If part of the goal of these tournaments is to attract the press, pick either (c) or (d) and our conference will get more attention than it has since Princeton upset UCLA.

Penn and Princeton fans should be salivating over (d) because the Quakers and Tigers will own the women's side as long as their current head coaches remain on the job.

Date Posted:09:27:42 08/11/17 Fri
I give you credit for being aware of the parameters of what we're working with. Guys who just say "It's stupid to have it at the Palestra" without acknowledging that the league wants to have both tournaments at the same venue are right up there with the guys who say "Ivy League football is going to Division III" without acknowledging the existence of the Dayton Rule. At best, it shows that the proffered opinion is uninformed.

I get the people who criticize having a tournament at all. They have an alternative (i.e., no tournament).

I get the people who criticize the decision to have both tournaments at the same venue. They have an alternative (i.e., have each at the regular season's champ campus).

I remain bewildered by the people who criticize the decision to have the tournament at the Palestra. We ask what their alternative venue is, and we get freaking crickets...